Jan Helfeld uses the line of reasoning often in interviews that you cannot delegate rights that you do not have.
Example 1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tBIKP4W50-I
Example 2. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GAY_hHGKL4M
This idea is also found in the Philosophy of Liberty animation. Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEZBIhaZW9w
It states (at the 3m16s mark):
You have the right to protect your own life, liberty, and justly acquired property from the forceful aggression of othersAnd you may ask others to help defend youBut you do not have the right to initiate force against the life, liberty and property of othersThus, you have no no right to designate some person to initiate force against others on your behalf.You have the right to seek leaders for yourself but you have no right to impose rulers onto othersNo matter how officials are selectedthey are only human beings and they have no rights or claims that are higher than those of any other human beingsRegardless of the imaginative labels for their behavior...or the numbers of people encouraging them,[..]You cannot give them any rights that you do not have yourself.
Now here's my question. It seems to me that this argument unequivocally leads to anarcho-capitalism. You have the right to defend yourself, so you can hire someone to do it for you. But you cannot tax your neighbor, so your defense-company cannot also. And so we get competing private firms and anarcho-capitalism. However, Jan Helfeld is also a defender of the minarchist position.
So does the philosophy of liberty and not being able to delegate rights that you do not have, lead clearly to anarcho-capitalism, or does it not, and do minarchists have arguments to reconcile this.
Haven't seen the videos neither the animation, but I think you're right. What some minarchists want is a voluntarily-funded government, which is all compatible with the NAP. The main problem here is that it cannot forbid other people (or organizations) from entering the market and provide the same services the government provides. I think every minarchist understand this (or at least they should). Most of them (at least, those I know) reject anarcho-capitalism because they don't see it feasible. My main argument against this is that it is (much) more feasible than a government existing and limiting its own power.
Following the non-aggression principle could lead only to anarchy as I understand it. It seems like minarchist arguments are always either internally inconsistent or arguments from ignorance about how order can be maintained without the tyranny they supposedly dislike.
I don't know if I am able to explain this correctly but I think of what ought to manifest itself in anarchy as a sort of a "distributed-archy" (not panarchy). I think that people are likely to cede bits of rights through contract with various companies, but not hopefully give in to all-encompassing "voluntary governments". They may join a security/justice firm that sets a $20 fine for minor trespassing rather than exploring what might actually be a proper punishment, or allow the firm that homesteaded their municipal water system the right to dig to repair pipes, etc.
I think of it as a sort of 3d Ven diagram or a web like structure and states being like a single circle, then aggression would be like a wind flowing through the system. A simple understanding of physics tells you which will be stronger.
Democracy means the opportunity to be everyone's slave.—Karl Kraus.
Nielsio:Now here's my question. It seems to me that this argument unequivocally leads to anarcho-capitalism.
That it does! Which is why it is such an effective tool. It doesn't use labels, so there is no real baggage attached to it.
Nielsio:However, Jan Helfeld is also a defender of the minarchist position.
Yeah, it's a shame... hope he continues to use the Socratic method against the political elite though.